Limits of Natural Selection a Reason to Teach All Theories

Stephen C. MeyerFrom The News Tribune, May 12, 1996

The sky is falling.

Or so you might think if you've been reading press accounts of the controversy
in Sultan over how to teach biological origins. Some say that if Sultan allows
students access to information challenging contemporary Darwinism, all manner
of ill will prevail. Not only would such information confuse students about
the facts, it would mislead them about the very nature of science. Worse, it
would let fundamentalist religion into the science classroom.

Such thinking misses the mark. Contrary to predictions, greater openness in
the biology curriculum is necessary if our students are to achieve scientific
literacy and escape ideological indoctrination.

Current biology instruction presents only half the scientific picture. For
example, none of the standard high school biology texts even mentions the Cambrian
explosion, arguably the most dramatic event in the history of life. Indeed,
fossil studies reveal "a biological big bang" near the beginning of
the Cambrian period 530 million years ago. At that time, at least fifty separate
major groups of organisms or "phyla" (including all the basic body
plans of modern animals) emerged suddenly without clear precursors. Fossil finds
have repeatedly confirmed a pattern of explosive appearance and prolonged stability
in living formsónot the gradual step-by-step change predicted by neo-Darwinian
theory.

Yet students don't learn about these findings. Some science educators justify
the omission on the grounds that it would confuse students. But scientific literacy
requires that students know all significant facts whether or not they happen
to support cherished theories.

Or consider another example. Many biology texts tell about the famous finches
in the Galapagos Islands whose beaks have varied in shape and length over time.
They also recall how moth populations in England darkened and then lightened
in response to varying levels of industrial pollution. Such episodes are presented
as conclusive evidence for evolution. And indeed they are, depending on how
one defines evolution.

Yet few biology textbooks distinguish the different meanings associated with
"evolution"ó a term that can refer to anything from trivial
change to the creation of life by strictly mindless, material forces. Nor do
they explain that the processes responsible for cyclical variations in beak
length or wing color do not explain where birds, moths and biologists came from
in the first place. As a host of distinguished biologists (e.g. Kauffman, Raff,
Miklos) have explained in recent technical papers, small-scale "micro-evolutionary"
change cannot be extrapolated to explain large scale "macro-evolutionary"
innovation. Micro-evolutionary changes (such as variation in color or shape)
merely utilize or express existing genetic information; the large-scale macro-evolutionary
change necessary to assemble new organs or body plans requires the creation
of entirely new genetic information. Leading evolutionary biologists know this
distinction poses serious difficulties for neo-Darwinism. Students should too.

Indeed, students should not only know the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian
theory, they should know about alternative theories, both materialistic and
otherwise. Most importantly, they should know that many scientists do not accept
the Darwinian idea that life arose as the result of strictly mindless processesóthat
many scientists see powerful evidence of intelligent design.

Consider the case of Dean Kenyon. For nearly twenty years Professor Kenyon
was a leading evolutionary theorist who specialized in origin-of-life biology.
While at Berkeley in 1969 he wrote a book that defined evolutionary thinking
on the origin-of-life for over a decade. Yet during the late 1970s Kenyon found
himself doubting his own theory. As molecular biologists learned more about
the complexity of living things, Kenyon began to wonder whether undirected chemistry
could really produce the intricate information processing systems found in even
"simple" cells. Studies of the genetic molecule DNA showed that the
instructions encoded along its spine displayed all the hallmarks of intelligent
communication or language. Kenyon and many other scientists have now concluded
that the information in DNAólike the information in a computer program,
an ancient scroll or in this newspaperóhad an intelligent source.

Another advocate of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael
Behe, has just written a book entitled Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press
1996). Behe explains that during Darwin's time the biochemistry of life was
as mysterious to scientists as the wires and chips inside a computer are to
small children. As long as scientists didn't know how the biochemical machinery
worked, they could reasonably believe that life had gradually self-assembled.
Now that we know the inner workings of living systems, however, we can no longer
entertain such superstitions.

In one section, Behe examines the intricate workings of an acid powered rotary
engine. What does this have to do with biology? Well, curiously this engine
does not power a lawnmower or an automobile, but the propellor-like tails of
certain bacteria. Professor Behe shows that the intricate machinery in this
molecular motor requires the coordinated interaction of some two hundred complex
protein parts. Yet the absence of almost any one of these proteins would result
in the complete loss of motor function. To believe this engine emerged gradually
in a Darwinian fashion strains credulity. Natural selection only selects functionally
advantageous systems. Yet motor function only ensues after the necessary
parts have independently self-assembledóan astronomically improbable
event. Behe concludes that a designing intelligence must have played a role.

Many parents in Sultan had hoped that their students could learn about such
scientific developments. The controversy began when two ex-teachers Brent and
Cindy Rappun asked the school board to consider placing copies of Professor
Kenyon's supplementary biology text, Pandas and People, in the school
library. Pandas has been endorsed by Professor Behe and many other scientists
including professors from Princeton and Oxford.

Nevertheless, many asserted that the book's defense of intelligent design
did not qualify as science, since the intelligent designer postulated by scientists
cannot be observed or tested. Yet scientists often infer unobservable entitiesóquarks,
forces, fields, the big bangóto explain observable evidence. Darwinists
themselves postulate unobservable "transitional" organisms and allegedly
creative processes that occur too slowly to be observed.

Further, origins theories, whether Darwinian or otherwise, are not tested
by making predictions and observing the results in controlled laboratory settings
as some seem to assume. Rather, they are tested by comparing the explanatory
power of one theory against another. Historical scientists evaluate theories
rather like detectives who must determine which crime scenario best explains
the available evidence. Contemporary design theorists favor their theory precisely
because they believe it has greater explanatory power than strict Darwinism.
And there's nothing unscientific in that.

Of course, many claimed that allowing students to consider evidence for intelligent
design would constitute religious indoctrination. Many tried to equate design
with fundamentalist religion and the discredited "creation science"
movement. But design theory is not "creation-science." It does not
reject modern geology. Nor is it derived from religious authority or biblical
teaching. Instead, intelligent design is an inference derived from biological
evidence.

Even so, all origins theories have some unavoidable philosophical (and even
religious) implications. The present crop of biology texts make no attempt to
hide the anti-theistic implications of contemporary Darwinism. Douglas Futuyma's
book tells students that Darwinism makes "theological explanations"
of life "superfluous." Kenneth Miller's book insists that "evolution
works without either plan or purpose." By denying any evidence of intelligent
design in nature, Darwinist texts promote the anti-theistic philosophy known
as materialism.

The threat of indoctrination does not come from allowing students to ponder
the philosophical questions raised by the origins issue. Instead, it comes from
force-feeding students a single ideological perspective. The rather modest effort
in Sultan to prevent this, is hardly cause for hysteria.

Stephen Meyer received his doctorate from
Cambridge University in the philosophy of science. He teaches
at Whitworth College in Spokane and is a Senior Fellow at the
Discovery Institute.